The Battle of Azanulbizar does have a lot to do with Thorin's story, however
[In reply to]

Can't Post

And IMO, the Hobbit is about how Bilbo and Thorin view the world differently, and how a blend of their two modes is the best sort of way to be...

So, in my view, a Hobbit film with lots of dwarven history stuff in it is still the Hobbit.

And lastly, it's a bit strange to say that this is becoming just a collection of tales with the Quest of Erebor among them, just because some people here are calling for the addition of Aragorn and Arwen, and the fall of Arnor. As far as I am aware, these people are not part of the production, and have no say in what gets included. My sense is that PJ and company will be sticking to the timeframe of the Hobbit, and the general narrative of the Hobbit, and will simply indulge a bit more of the dwarven history, and the goings on at Laketown and Thranduil's Halls.

I don't think we're getting any bridge material per se. This will all be Hobbit, with Hobbit-related stuff from the Appendices.

I actually think the multiple endings think could have easily been avoided.
[In reply to]

Can't Post

All they would have had to do is not black out so long in between each "ending." It only felt weird because the audience kept expecting each shot to be the last and when it wasn't it was jarring. If they'd cut more smoothly it would have felt a lot better. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie. The cake is a lie___

So far as I can see, the only reason Peter Jackson would have gone to the studio with a request to add more filming and split this into three films is because he thinks it will work better. Better. He wants to make the best possible film.

Is he right? No idea. I don't know but - get this - nor does anyone else here. None of us have seen the scripts. No one knows what material he is adding or - even more crucially - HOW he is adding it. Seems to me that people are upsetting themselves with their own theories, which might bear no relation whatever to the actual film.

There is no fixed length for an adaptation. I could outline the story of the Hobbit in a couple of minutes while Rob Inglis takes 11 hours to read it unabridged - and that's without explaining where Gandalf went. I'm completely baffled by the way posters here who liked the latest production video and were positively ecstatic about the panoramic poster and the details coming out from Comic-con are now rushing round in circles shouting 'Doom!' and 'Tell the King the sky is falling' because a film they were looking forward to in two parts is now to be divided into three.

It's the same film. Anyone who had reservations before, or who simply doesn't like Peter Jackson's films, I can understand, but the rest? It seems very sad to me if people who were quite prepared to enjoy this a few weeks ago are going to talk themselves into rejecting now it even before they've seen it, just because it's divided differently.

Me? I go back to the trailer, which I enjoyed, the production videos, which I enjoyed, the panoramic poster, which is brilliant. Everything (almost everything) I've seen so far looks extremely good and I'm looking forward to seeing the film. Then I'll decide if I like it or not.

... but too sensible when people are enjoying themselves so much freaking out. But I agree with every word. Then, I'm almost always on the side of "wait and see how it turns out in the finished movie" concerning spoilers and leaks.

I too believe that when PJ, Fran and Philippa looked at the rough cut of The Hobbit, they likely saw that they had way more great footage than they could comfortably fit into two films. With some additional filming, some of which was already planned, they could make three better movies. This upsizing of The Hobbit to epic proportions is fine with me.

I love the LotR EEs but that is because they include additional material. If the equivalent material makes it into The Hobbit theatrical versions, I'll be happy. But probably there will be Hobbit EEs anyway; too much money to be made.

However, people trust him to make a good film set in Middle-earth because he's done it three times already.

Sorry, but just like LOTR is one very big book sometimes split into 3 volumes, LOTR is one very long 11+ hours movie, usually split into 3 extended editions - and into many more DVDs. Though I can assure you it makes for a very good (but very long) viewing session "Gods don't like people not doing much work. People who aren't busy all the time may start to think." - Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

Milknut: I actually think the multiple endings think could have easily been avoided. All they would have had to do is not black out so long in between each "ending." It only felt weird because the audience kept expecting each shot to be the last and when it wasn't it was jarring. If they'd cut more smoothly it would have felt a lot better.

Or you could be more positive about it and treat each ending like encores at a concert. Quite the opposite of jarring, it makes me happy and appreciative to see that it is NOT yet the end of the night when the performers come out to play a little more after a fantastic show.

Also, I think the fades in this context are much more appropriate than cuts. The fades connote a passage of time and separate events. Cuts imply a faster, concurrent pace. After the climax, it's time to relax.

I can just imagine all the tossing and turning last night. I for one slept like a baby. The wait is over. The other shoe has dropped. It's out of our hands, Tornfolk - and it has always been so; fortunately, because how would we ever decide how to do it? The Hobbit: By Consensus. It would never happen.

Now we can get on here with some productive speculation about what will be in each film.

Bilbo will not be as personally damaged as Frodo. Even though he will go through dark times and be tested by dangerous events, he'll come out of it a stronger hobbit than when he began. Bilbo is still life-loving and joyful, if not completely unaffected by the Ring, when we see him at 111 in Fellowship.

Quote

"...but my own adventure turned out to be quite different"

By the time Frodo meets Bilbo in Rivendell and says those words, however, he has already received a wound that will never leave him. He'll continue with his mission because of his strength of character, but due to the effect of the Ring and the Morgul blade, he will never again be the same happy hobbit he was when he left the Shire.

There is a difference in tone between TH and LOTR, and I agree that the writers will not forget that. Bilbo is going to have a rollicking good time with those dwarves - at least that's how he'll come to look back on it when it's all over.